X-Message-Number: 28132
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:09:41 -0600
From: "Anthony ." <>
Subject: Re:
References: <>

> From: Kennita Watson <>
> Subject: Re: poverty and progress
> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 09:46:38 -0700
>
> Anthony wrote:
> > A rich man walks past a homeless man and offers nothing. The homeless
> > man only needs a few dollars to pay for a hostel room. That night, the
> > homeless man dies of exposure. Would you say that the rich man is to
> > some degree accountable for this?
>
> I say no.  If the rich man gave the homeless
> man a few dollars, he would be just as likely
> to be accountable for feeding the homeless
> man's alcohol or drug addiction -- many would
> say much more likely.

Only if the person had an addiction. To assume he does is prejudicial.
Hell, if it was obvious the guy was in withdrawals I'd give him money
just to ease that pain - it is not like he'll successfully go
cold-turkey on the street.

In any case, without money the homeless man has no choice. With money
the homeless man could at least CHOOSE to pay for his bed or for
drugs. (You could argue that in giving him money you are risking
funding the criminal drug underworld, but as a libertarian, the
criminal underworld is a pretty good unregulated market right? - well,
except the force, threats, murder, etc.)

> And guess what -- you are just as accountable
> as the rich man.  You have a few dollars and
> the homeless man doesn't, so you are accountable
> for whatever happens if you don't give it to him
> -- or if you do.

If a homeless person asks me for money, I give them every cent of cash
I've got. I don't expect everyone to do this, but if - say - 100
people walk past a homeless person everyday and they all gave him a
dollar, he'd potentially be off the street pretty quickly. Then again,
the worthless druggie bum might just give all that money to the
nearest drug-dealer. But wait a sec... you can do that with your wage
or salary too.

I don't mean to spark a debate about whether giving directly to the
homeless or to a homeless charity is better or not - this is just a
tangent. I was trying to illustrate how wealth should be
conscientiously connected to responsibility and compassion - like in
the case of the Cryonics Institute who gave a suspension contract to
James Swayze who is disabled and couldn't afford to do it himself
(from what I understand - please correct me if I'm wrong).

Unfortunately becoming wealthy is often about being ruthlessly
competative. I suppose this is the basic banal point all of my recent
posts have been protesting.

>  It's the price of being free
> to do what you think best with your few dollars,
> because it's yours.

True to some degree, but the economy relies on people being homeless,
poor, and unemployed, and so they are owed something by the system
which uses them. Furthermore, how does one aquire ones cash? The
dollar in your pocket might be yours (or rather the State's), but how
did it get there, what is it connected to? This leads to the next
point -

John de Rivaz wrote:
> >> ... discussions don't usually propose the use of force.
> >
> > Again, unless you consider tax force, I didn't propose it.
>
> l/Libertarians
> assert that tax is the use of force to extract funds
> from someone, and that what you're extracting them
> for, or who you're extracting them from, doesn't
> change that fact.

I realise this is the libertarian position. What I would like to ask
libertarians is: do you think our societies would be able to provide
the healthcare, education, civic services, and all the other things
that need taxes if there were no taxes? Should we all depend on the
(unregulated, uncoerced by law) charity of the rich? People don't
willingly or easily part with their money if it is going to some
stranger, especially if that stranger is thought to be undeserving -
and from what I gather from some, if you don't have money, you don't
deserve it.

BTW, I realise that this (irrelevant?) talk is tiresome for a few, but
the personal mails I've received have been 50% supportive. It is true
that one person tried to express his disapproval, but he used a
double-negative ;)

Just to explain again - this talk of economics, moral responsibility,
etc. might not be DIRECTLY related to cryonics, but it is helping me
"get a feel" for the people I might be sharing the future with. I'm
usually fairly silent when it comes to cryonet & I don't usually post,
but now that I'm preparing the ground for signing-up, I'm more
curious. In getting responses I can not only understand my cryo-peers,
but I can engaging with you all and hopefully the exchange will have
some value.

thanks,
Anthony

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=28132